Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-16 PZ MinutesU CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 2015 Chairman Dodd called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. The pledge of allegiance was said by all. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Roth Mr. McManus Mr. Dodd Mr. Qizilbash Ms. Kautenburg(a) Mr. Carter Mr. Alvarez (a) Mr. Reyes EXCUSED: Mr. Durr ALSO PRESENT: Frank Watanabe, PE, Community Development Director Dorri Bosworth, Planner Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney Jan King, Sr. Planner/Recording Secretary Ms. Dale Simchick, IRC School Board Liaison was also present ANNOUNCEMENTS: 0 L— C .2 C7 �U �m M �C V1 N Chmn. Dodd stated that Mr. Durr was excused from the meeting and Ms. Kautenburg would vote in his place. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION by Kautenburg/Carter to accept the minutes of the March 5, 2015 Local Planning Agency meeting as submitted. Motion was approved unanimously by voice vote. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: A. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REVIEW — LDC SECTION 54-2-7.5 — 201 DELAWARE AVENUE — LOT 35, BLOCK 492, UNIT 15 - 24'x 25'(600 SF) SHED — DEREK DAVIS The applicant and homeowner, Mr. Derek Davis, was present, and stated they had recently moved to Sebastian to retire and requested approval of the proposed shed. The manufactured structure was steel with vertical panels to match the T-111 panels on the house, of the same color, with white trim. He stated the shed would be used as his workshop. Ms. Bosworth reviewed that the lots in Block 492 were larger than the standard 80 X125 size and had a 50 -foot FPL easement in the rear. A portion of the shed, 13 feet, would encroach into the easement, but staff had received a written approval from FPL allowing it. She stated that there were two smaller existing sheds in the same location as the new shed, but that they would be removed. A tree survey was enclosed in the Commissioner's packet, indicating 12 trees that were required would be remaining on the site. Ms. Bosworth stated staff recommended approval. f cr CL E rn PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2015 Mr. Reyes asked how vehicles would access the garage. Mr. Davis stated there was existing access from the rear alleyway in the easement. He stated if the alleyway was ever eliminated, he could access the shed from the side of the house. Ms. Bosworth explained that the unplatted, rough, gravel alleyway was used by the FPL trucks and property owners alike, gates and fences were never installed to block anyone, and although the city does not issue formal driveway permits for these accesses, the City is OK with the use of the alleyway at this time. Mr. Reyes asked if electric was being installed. Mr. Davis stated yes, at a later date. Mr. Reyes stated he would like to see the same side yard setback used as the house so that the shed was not seen from the street (13 feet (house) vs. 10 feet (proposed shed setback)] and felt there was not enough room between the house and property line for future access, if needed. Mr. Davis stated currently you could not see the backyard from the street, and Ms. Bosworth explained that concrete could be permitted up to the property line and 13 feet was wide enough for a driveway. Mr. Roth asked if the repairs/work to be done in the shed was for profit. Mr. Davis responded no. The height of the house was discussed, which Mr. Davis had the house at 17.5 feet. Mr. Carter asked if additional landscaping was required. Ms. Bosworth stated no, only if the structure was over 750 SF in size. Ms. Kautenburg asked about what trees were going to be removed, and noted that the encroachment into the easement could be a title problem down the road. MOTION by Roth/Carter "to approve the structure planned for 201 Delaware Avenue, Lot 35, as submitted with the staff requirements." Mr. Reyes asked to have the motion amended to add that the side setbacks of the house and shed be the same. Mr. Davis stated he disagreed with the proposed condition, that he was meeting the required setback, and the additional feet may then require more trees having to be removed. Mr. Reyes rescinded his request. ROLL CALL: Mr. Qizilbash yes Ms. Kautenburg yes Ms. Roth yes Mr. Dodd yes Mr. McManus yes Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Carter yes The vote was 7-0. Motion carried B. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING — SITE PLAN & WAIVER — O'REILLY AUTO PARTS — 6,972 SF RETAIL BUILDING — 220 SEBASTIAN BOULEVARD — COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONING DISTRICT — REQUESTED WAIVER FROM LDC SECTION 54-4-21.A.7: RIVERFRONT OVERLAY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS Chairman Dodd asked the Commissioners if they had any ex -parte communication to disclose. There was none. The applicant/representative and staff were sworn in by the City Attorney. Mr. Ryan Givens, a land planner representing the applicant (no company name was given), reviewed details of the proposed site plan also stating that the building was one of the smaller prototype that the company had, and they were providing more parking than the minimum required. He stated that, as noted in the staff report, the additional 27 hedge plants needed to meet minimum requirements would be provided, and they were in agreement with the other two conditions in the report. 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2015 Ms. Bosworth further detailed that the commercial subdivision had an existing master stormwater system that the site would be hooking into and the modification permit from St. John's had already been received. She noted that the environmental study that had been submitted with the application was outdated by a year and a more current study had been requested or submittal of a statement letter from the environmental consultant that the information was still valid. The applicant was working on getting that to staff. Ms. Bosworth explained the history of the subdividing of the original property and the request from Indian River County for the Maintenance and Drainage Easement along CR 512 at that time. Since a portion of the applicant's landscape buffer, drainage, and irrigation was located in the easement, she stated staff had required an approval from the county. To satisfy their initial concerns, the applicant proposed a gravity wall and the county forwarded their approval with conditions, which were noted in the staff report. The wall would be stucco'd and painted to match the building. Ms. Bosworth then reviewed the applicant's request for the landscape waiver, and discussed the comparison charts included in the Commissioner's packets. She explained that the landscape plan was 27 hedge plants short of the minimum required from the general code, and the applicant previously stated they would amend the plan. She stated the waiver was specifically for 21 canopy trees, 41 understory trees, and 482 foundation shrubs. Staff compared the adjacent Sherwin Williams site and stated they had not requested any landscape waivers and was able to plant all the required materials on a comparable sized lot and building. Ms. Bosworth stated staff was suggesting a portion of the understory trees be planted as infill between the canopy trees along the street right -of ways. Staff recommended approval of the plan with the three conditions as discussed. Mr. Dodd asked if the remaining portion of the subdivision had been platted, how many lots existed, and who maintained the stormwater system. Staff stated there were 4 platted lots, and the Property Owners Association was responsible for the pond. Mr. Dodd also questioned if the wall would need to be extended to the adjacent lot to the east when it was developed, and how would it match that building. Ms. Bosworth stated the new site may not need a wall if there weren't any encroachments, but staff would require the wall to be consistent. Mr. Dodd stated he felt all the sites should have similar landscaping and was glad staff had researched the Sherwin Williams plan. Mr. Carter questioned why the waiver was being requested. Mr. Givens stated there was not enough room on the site to accommodate all of the required trees for that size of a lot, and they would have to shrink the building to fit. Mr. Dodd asked staff how the requirements would differ if the C512 Overlay was used instead of the Riverfront's. Ms. Bosworth stated the 512 Overlay required additional landscaping along the street fronts and does not require the foundation plantings. Mr. Qizilbash asked if they granted a waiver from only the Riverfront requirements would the site meet the C512 requirements. Ms. Bosworth stated they would need to add understory trees along the streets and 3 additional canopy trees to be incompliance. Mr. McManus stated was glad to see the business come into town, and felt the property was far enough away from the Riverfront District to have to meet those requirements, and would rather see them meet the C512 requirements. Mr. Roth had questions regarding the [gravity] wall's location and height. Staff stated it was shown on Sheet C-7, read Note #18, and gave details regarding the finished grade elevations. Mr. Roth stated he thought it was an attractive site and would be an asset to the city. [7:32 p.m. - At this time, severe weather knocked out power for approx. 1 minute] Mr. Reyes stated he felt the subdivision layout/design was accounting for some of the problems with the landscaping because of the access easement and had landscaping concerns for the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2015 remaining two lots. Staff stated driveways and access points are subtracted from lineal footages used for calculations, and adjacent lots can share buffers when developed. Ms. Kautenburg stated she looked forward to the site being developed, but also didn't understand the hardship for the waiver request, and hated to see that many trees not being planted. Mr. McManus had additional questions regarding the wall and its height. Mr. Watanabe clarified that the wall was not above grade and but was a retaining wall. Chmn. Dodd asked if there was anyone in the public that was opposed or in favor of the application. There was none. Ms. Bosworth summarized that staff recommended approval of the site plan with the three conditions listed in the staff report, including the Commissioner's consideration of the waiver request. During the deliberation Mr. Alvarez asked how many employees there would be. Mr. Givens stated potentially nine. Mr. McManus reiterated he did not want to see the site held to the Riverfront requirements and asked staff how many trees were needed to comply with the C512 requirements. Ms. Bosworth stated 10 understory trees on the west and 12 understory trees on the south, with the trees needing to be 5 to 6 feet in height at planting. Mr. Dodd agreed with having them meet the C512 regulations. Mr. Roth stated he was glad that the site had designed the delivery area away from street visibility. Mr. Givens clarified how many trees were needed, and Mr. Dodd responded that the Commissioners were confident with staff to allow them to work with the applicant on how many trees should go on the revised plan. There was further discussion on what types of trees could be planted. Mr. Ginsburg discussed the language that chould be used in the motion. MOTION by DoddlQizilbash "to approve the site plan for O'Reilly's Auto Parts located at 220 Sebastian Boulevard with condition #1 & #2 as proposed in the staff report, and condition #3 would read that we grant a landscape waiver so that the site plan substantially is in accordance with the C512 Overlay Code." ROLL CALL: Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Dodd yes Mr. Roth yes Mr. Carter yes Mr. McManus yes Ms. Kautenburg yes Mr. Qizilbash yes The vote was 7-0. Motion carried. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: Chmn. Dodd thanked the city and staff for the workshop that City Council held on meeting procedures and the presentation by [Marilyn Crotty]. From the workshop, with regards to keeping others informed with the upcoming landscaping revisions, Mr. Dodd asked Mr. Watanabe to ask Mr. Griffin if they could do a presentation to City Council summarizing why the landscaping code was being revised, where they were with the process, and if the Council had any input or comments. Chmn. Dodd stated this could also eliminate wasted time if the Council did not agree with the direction the Commissioners were taking with the revisions. Mr. Watanabe agreed with the idea and stated he would approach the City Manager with the request. Mr. Roth suggested letting the City Council know that the Chamber's suggestions and information had been previously reviewed and considered during their earlier discussion. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2015 MEMBERS MATTERS: Mr. Alavarez mentioned that the sidewalk in front of Cumberland Farms had still not been repaired yet and he did not want it to become a city liability. Mr. Watanabe stated the sidewalk was under Indian River County's jurisdiction and in the CR 512 right -of way. He stated he would call the county engineer and relay the information. Mr. Roth asked about the status of the sidewalk along Barber Street across the railroad tracks which he presumed was tied in with All Aboard Florida. Mr. Watanabe stated the city's preliminary plans for sidewalks across Barber, Schumann, and Main were already submitted, and he expected in the near future to receive the 90% plans from AAF regarding their plans for the crossings to verify the inclusions of the sidewalks at those crossings since St. Lucie County had recently received their plans [from AAF]. There was also a discussion on proposed Quiet Zones, being on the grant list for the upgrade, and the long amount of time to get any construction started. Mr. Reyes verified who was maintaining the rear ditches on the residential lots, and if it was still city workers. Mr. Watanabe updated the Commissioners with recent history and the current system in place. Mr. Reyes noted that when fences were permitted to be placed on the rear property line the homeowners were maintaining the ditch, but in other places the homeowners were not and that was where the problems seemed to be. He asked if there was a master stormwater plan in place, and felt the city was using unnecessary funds to clean the ditches when the homeowner should be maintaining it themselves. Mr. Watanabe stated some homeowners were very proactive keeping the ditches clean, but because of those who weren't, the city needed to keep the ditches functioning. Mr. Reyes stated when fences aren't permitted to be on the rear property line, but only on the easement line, it restricted the homeowner from accessing their entire property and the rear ditch got ignored. In response to a question, Mr. Watanabe stated the stormwater master plan was updated four years ago, and was current. Ms. Kautenburg asked if there was a cost-sharing program between the city and residents to pipe the larger ditches so that in the end it was easier for the residents to maintain and the city could save funds. A discussion ensued on how the costs of piping and materials have increased. Mr. McManus noted piping would eliminate perculation, which was the purpose of the ditches. DIRECTOR MATTERS: None ATTORNEY MATTERS: None Chairman Dodd adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m. (d6)